HM Courts and Tribunals Service

5. Ms J complains that HMCTS:

• did not notify her that an application had been made against her, serve her with this application or check service had been completed before proceeding between April and August 2024

• did not make her bundle available to the Judge for the hearing in January 2025.

6. Ms J says because of HMCTS’ mistakes, the hearing went ahead without the Judge being able to take her evidence into account and HMCTS denied her a fair chance for her case to be properly considered. She explained because she was not served with the application, she had no opportunity to respond before an order, including costs, was made against her. She says this resulted in her incurring legal costs of £5,616, to set the order aside. She describes feeling powerless and humiliated, as well as losing trust and confidence in the justice system. She reports that HMCTS’ errors caused her significant stress, anxiety, and sleep disruption.

7. By bringing this complaint to us, Ms J wants:

• an acknowledgement of failings • an apology • service improvements • a financial remedy.

8. In April 2024 another party filed an application, supporting documents and a draft order against Ms J with the Family Court. Ms J states she did not receive these.

9. On 10 July 2024, HMCTS processed this application and referred it to the Judge to consider on 2 August 2024.

10. On 7 August 2024, the Judge issued an order, which HMCTS uploaded to the portal the same day.

11. Ms J received this order by post in August 2024. She states this was the first time she became aware of the application. She also states the order arrived without a covering letter, notice of a hearing, or explanation.

12. On 12 September 2024, Ms J’s legal representation filed an application through HMCTS’ portal to vary or set aside the order dated 7 August 2024.

13. In January 2025 the Court held a hearing to consider Ms J’s application to vary or set aside the order. During the hearing the Judge told Ms J they could not locate her bundle on the portal. A court bundle is an organised collection of documents presented to a judge during a court hearing. It typically includes all relevant documents necessary for the judge to understand and decide the case effectively.

14. Ms J’s legal representation told the Judge they had uploaded the bundle as a case document because they could not upload it as a bundle option. The Judge decided to proceed with the hearing, without access to Ms J’s bundle.

15. In June 2025, complained to HMCTS about what had happened. HMCTS did not uphold the complaint and issued its final response in September 2025. It explained that it had been the applicant’s responsibility to serve copies of the application on other parties. It added it had processed the application and referred it to a Judge who approved the order without amendments. HMCTS said it could not comment on or review judicial decisions, as the judiciary is independent.

16. HMCTS added that it uploaded the approved order to the portal on 7 August and sent by post. It noted that Ms J’s legal representative reportedly had difficulty accessing the portal, but it had no record them raising this issue at the time. It further noted that the legal representative had been able to upload a later application (to set aside the 7 August order).

17. On 10 October 2025, Ms J approached her MP with her complaint and asked them to refer it to us.

Application

20. Section 5(1)(iii) and Section 6(3) of the Act require a person to make a complaint to a MP in writing and request they refer it to our office within one year of becoming aware of the issue. We can only investigate complaints submitted outside this timeframe if there is a good reason to set aside the time limit.

21. By her own admission, Ms J knew, in August 2024, that an application had been made. This meant she needed to approach her MP about this issue no later than August 2025. However, the evidence shows she did not do so until October 2025. We have explored with Ms J why she did not complain earlier.

22. She told us that, at the time of these events, she was busy completing a university degree and was engaged in court proceedings which she believed needed to end before she could complain. She was also selling her home. Ms J explained that she is a survivor of domestic abuse and has a diagnosis of anxiety and depression. She says the combined strain of legal proceedings, the house sale, childcare responsibilities as a single parent, and the complaints process fully occupied her time.

23. Ms J told us she was aware we usually expect people to complete HMCTS’ complaints process before coming to us and that this process did not end until September 2025. She added that navigating HMCTS’ complaints process without legal representation took significantly more time for her.

24. We recognise the challenges Ms J has faced during this period, including her demanding personal circumstances, legal processes, and responsibilities as a single mother while coping with the effects of domestic abuse and mental health difficulties. This was no doubt a difficult time for her.

25. Having carefully considered the reasons Ms J has given us for not raising this complaint to her MP in writing within one-year, we have not seen sufficient justification to set aside the statutory time limit. We consider there were reasonable opportunities for Ms J to progress the matter sooner, despite the difficulties she faced.

26. We recognise that court proceedings can be a stressful and demanding experience, and we do not underestimate their impact. However, court proceedings typically address legal matters, and they do not prevent someone from raising administrative concerns with HMCTS at the same time. These processes can run in parallel, and individuals are not required to wait for the conclusion of legal proceedings before approaching HMCTS about concerns related to administrative actions.

27. We have taken account of what Ms J told us about navigating HMCTS’s complaint system. The evidence shows she did not complain to HMCTS about this issue until June 2025, around 10 months after she first became aware of it. Once she complained, HMCTS issued a final response within three months. Had Ms J raised her concerns with HMCTS earlier, her complaint would likely have been in time for our purposes. For that reason, we cannot say HMCTS’s complaint process was a significant barrier to her approaching her MP within the allowed time-limit.

28. We understand why Ms J believes both her complaints are connected and why she wanted to raise them together. However, she became aware of the application issue at least three months before the portal issue occurred so does not explain why she did not complain about the application issue sooner. The evidence also shows that, despite being aware of both issues by January 2025, she waited a further five months before raising either concern with HMCTS.

29. We fully acknowledge the difficulties Ms J has faced and do not underestimate the impact of her circumstances. We also need to apply time limits fairly and consistently. We do not feel there is enough reason to put the time limit to one side in this case, so we will not be taking any further action on this part of Ms J’s complaint.

HMCTS’s failure to make the bundle available to the Judge

30. There is no dispute that, at the hearing in January 2025, the Judge could not locate Ms J’s legal bundle on the HMCTS portal. The dispute is about why this happened.

31. HMCTS says Ms J’s legal representative appears not to have uploaded the bundle to the correct section of the portal. Ms J dispute this and believes HMCTS made an administrative error.

32. To explore this further, and to put this complaint and our decision in context, it may be helpful to explain more about the portal itself.

33. The HMCTS portal is an online system provided by HM Courts and Tribunals Service for managing court documents and case information. It allows legal representatives, parties involved in cases, and court staff to upload, access, and manage documents electronically, reducing the need for paper submissions. The portal includes specific sections for submitting different types of documents.

34. HMCTS does not upload bundles for legal representatives. Legal representatives are responsible for ensuring they submit documents to the correct section of the portal. The online guidance explains how to upload court bundles and says used should select the court bundle option.

35. Ms J provided the January 2025 hearing transcript which confirms that the Judge could not find her bundle on the portal. The transcript also records Ms J’s legal representative as saying about this matter ‘It could not be uploaded as a bundle option. I had to upload it as a case document, so it should be under case document.’ Based on the guidance, this was not the correct place for the legal representative to have uploaded it.

36. It is not clear why the legal representative chose the option they did. Nor have we have seen any evidence that the legal representative raised concerns about the uploading process with HMCTS at the time. We understand this may be frustrating for Ms J, but any concerns about the legal representative’s actions are matters she would need to raise with them directly.

37. We know Ms J is unhappy that the Judge decided to proceed with the hearing without the bundle. We appreciate why this matters to her, given that she wanted the Judge to consider her evidence. The Judge’s decision to continue with the hearing is a judicial decision, and the Act does not allow us to investigate judicial decisions. If Ms J remains dissatisfied with that decision, we recommend she seeks independent legal advice about her next steps.

38. We would like to thank Ms J for bringing her complaint to us. We recognise this has been a difficult process for her, and we hope this report clearly explains why we have reached our decision.

1. We have carefully considered Ms J’s complaint about HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS). We are sorry to hear Ms J believes she did not have a fair chance to respond to the application made against her and for her evidence to be properly considered. We appreciate this was a distressing time for her and that she feels let down by the process.

2. Having looked at the evidence available to us, we have seen Ms J’s complaint regarding the application falls outside of our time limit. We have not seen a good reason to set our time limit to one side, so we cannot consider this complaint further.

3. We also considered Ms J’s complaint about the Judge not having access to the bundle. We recognise Ms J and HMCTS have different opinions about whether Ms J’s legal representation uploaded this to the portal correctly. On balance, we did not see any indications that HMCTS got something wrong.

4. For these reasons, we have decided not to take any further action on the complaint. We explain the reasons for this in more detail below.